Britain should invade Zimbabwe

williambonney

With all this nonsense going on in Zimbabwe at the moment I think it is time for the British to act. They have an obligation to the unfortunate people of that former colony. They should have a quiet word with Mugabe and tell him that the game is up. That half wit Mbeki should be brought to one side and told to stay out of it or suffer the consequences (economic and military). I know the British armed forces are stretched a bit at the moment, (other NATO countries could take up more slack in Afghanistan to help them out.) but it wouldn’t take much to put manners on the ramshackle Zimbabwe “military”. They would probably run as soon as they see the first paratrooper’s descending on them. They would certainly be no match for a European army. But I think the threat would be enough.

WoollyRedHat

I would think a U.N intervention is definitely at hand, but a military invasion? I wouldn't jump the gun there. After all, Britain already has itself involved in one lengthly war without involving itself in another.

williambonney

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

I would think a U.N intervention is definitely at hand, but a military invasion? I wouldn't jump the gun there. After all, Britain already has itself involved in one lengthly war without involving itself in another.

It wouldn’t take too much effort for the British to overthrow these clowns. And I think the British owe it to the people of Zimbabwe to stabilise their country. As regards the UN the serious military players don’t really put much store in it, except to use it as an excuse when it suits them. (I know the French are involved in Chad, but Chad is a former colony and the French have their own agenda.)

muletide

williambonney wrote: »

As regards the UN the serious military players don’t really put much store in it, except to use it as an excuse when it suits them. (I know the French are involved in Chad, but Chad is a former colony and the French have their own agenda.)

Chad is not a UN mission it is a EUFOR mission with a UN mandate (approval)

twinytwo

Eh.. dude i think what u mean is that he british government should intervine on behalf of the people??... as "invading" the country is a big no no

dlofnep

williambonney wrote: »

It wouldn’t take too much effort for the British to overthrow these clowns. And I think the British owe it to the people of Zimbabwe to stabilise their country. As regards the UN the serious military players don’t really put much store in it, except to use it as an excuse when it suits them. (I know the French are involved in Chad, but Chad is a former colony and the French have their own agenda.)

The same way they stabilised Iraq?

williambonney

dlofnep wrote: »

The same way they stabilised Iraq?

You can’t compare Iraq to the situation in Zimbabwe. Iraq is essentially a US war which was all about control of their oil supplies. When the Iraqi army was quickly defeated it gave the various religious factions in the country an excuse to go to war with each other. There would be no such situation in Zimbabwe. Their ramshackle army would give up without a fight and its leaders would probably flee across the border to Mozambique or South Africa. The general population would then be able to get behind their legitimate government and get the country back on its feet again. The British would of course only stay until the institutions of state were up and running. I would envisage very little blood shed.

Hagar

If you want to discuss the logistics, strategies, forces required etc for Britain to invade Zimbabwe well the Military Forum is the place to do that. This discussion however is political in nature so I'm moving it to politics.

meathstevie

A humanitarian intervention with UN security council backing wouldn't be a bad idea in case Mugabe decides to drown the election results in a pool of blood.

Big problem is the principle of non-intervention though. You'd nearly need a civil war to erupt and the opposition would need to seize significant parts of the territory and infrastructure to be able to claim "beligerent party" status and force a UN intervention.

If that would happen you are running the risk of the neighbours being in before the UN and turn the whole lot in to a lovely mess African style.

Another big risk you'd run in my opinion is destabilising South-Africa. As far as I can see that place is far shakier than you would think. Stuff like power outings etc are quite often not a good sign for underlying currents and are definitly not a symptom of good governance. I hold my breath for the day people like Mr. Mandela & Mr Tutu disappear of the scene and the ANC apparatsjiks realy get their hands on the place.

LordSutch

The idea of British forces getting involved in Zimbabwe did enter my head, but alas, this is 2008 and the British Army is very thinly stretched ....................................

So hopefully the UN can do something ?

turgon

Lads lads lads your getting way too ahead of yourselves! Yee forget that countries like Britain and the US don't intervene just for moralistic purposes - they need something in return. No oil, no money, no moral intervention. Simple as.

Same in Kosovo - does anyone think Kosovo would be independent if the US didn't want it? The great G.W. Bushy wushy himself couldn't care two republican hoots about the Kosovars - they aren't in his electorate! The US just wanted another ally against Russia.

So maybe if the UN pump billions of dollars worth of oil into the ground, then wee will see a British Crusade. Otherwise forget it.

twinytwo

turgon wrote: »

Lads lads lads your getting way too ahead of yourselves! Yee forget that countries like Britain and the US don't intervene just for moralistic purposes - they need something in return. No oil, no money, no moral intervention. Simple as.

Same in Kosovo - does anyone think Kosovo would be independent if the US didn't want it? The great G.W. Bushy wushy himself couldn't care two republican hoots about the Kosovars - they aren't in his electorate! The US just wanted another ally against Russia.

So maybe if the UN pump billions of dollars worth of oil into the ground, then wee will see a British Crusade. Otherwise forget it.

Well said mate and quite true!... people seem to forget that kosovo never existed nor was there even an idea of the place??... as for the problem in zimbabwe if u got back far enough u will find that the countries problems were created by either america or someother colonial power. It would have to be the UN that stepped in and things would have to get much much worse before that would happen.

twinytwo

meathstevie wrote: »

A humanitarian intervention with UN security council backing wouldn't be a bad idea in case Mugabe decides to drown the election results in a pool of blood.

Big problem is the principle of non-intervention though. You'd nearly need a civil war to erupt and the opposition would need to seize significant parts of the territory and infrastructure to be able to claim "beligerent party" status and force a UN intervention.

If that would happen you are running the risk of the neighbours being in before the UN and turn the whole lot in to a lovely mess African style.

Another big risk you'd run in my opinion is destabilising South-Africa. As far as I can see that place is far shakier than you would think. Stuff like power outings etc are quite often not a good sign for underlying currents and are definitly not a symptom of good governance. I hold my breath for the day people like Mr. Mandela & Mr Tutu disappear of the scene and the ANC apparatsjiks realy get their hands on the place.

oh mate the day mandela passes on there will be holy war in south africa.. he brought a form of peace and stability to the country that no man alive could possibley hope to recapture

Hobo Sapiens

williambonney wrote: »

With all this nonsense going on in Zimbabwe at the moment I think it is time for the British to act.

if you're right, then Britain should invade China, Burma, Syria, and the US, among others. Why shouldn't South Africa invade countries that they don't like? Don't restrict it to international relations, you should invade your neighbour if their behavior offends you. I could go on, but the point is obvious: your idea is stupid.

Victor

So, to invade Zimbabwe, which county should they invade first to get to Zimbabwe?

mike65

Fly in! From Belize.

To be serious, if there is country that should intervene its South Africa but with that tosser Mbeki in power and his near certain sucessor exactly the kind of leader that country and region does not need it won't happen.

Mike.

Duzzie

mike65 wrote: »

Fly in! From Belize.

To be serious, if there is country that should intervene its South Africa but with that tosser Mbeki in power and his near certain sucessor exactly the kind of leader that country and region does not need it won't happen.

Mike.

In order to mount any serious sort of intervention, it would have to be done in conjuntion with one of the neighbouring countries. Unfortunately the African Union is completely spineless when in comes to dealing with Mugabe. No African leader has had the balls to stand up to him. That is largely why Zimbabwe is in the state it is now. They have all left him to do his own thing, to the detrement of the whole of sub-saharan Africa.

Kevster

When I hear someone speak of Britain invading Zimbabwe, I find myself asking the question: How dumb exactly are you? Britain is already committed to Afghanistan and Iraq. Plus, the British public seriously don't like the fact that their troops have already well-overstayed their welcome in both of these countries.

If Gordon Browne was the stupidist person ever - yes - he would invade Zimbabwe. That simply won't happen, however, because he is not stupid. This Zimbabwe issue will go for a long time and the people of Zimbabwe will suffer.

Kevin.

Duzzie

Kevster wrote: »

When I hear someone speak of Britain invading Zimbabwe, I find myself asking the question: How dumb exactly are you? Britain is already committed to Afghanistan and Iraq. Plus, the British public seriously don't like the fact that their troops have already well-overstayed their welcome in both of these countries.

If Gordon Browne was the stupidist person ever - yes - he would invade Zimbabwe. That simply won't happen, however, because he is not stupid. This Zimbabwe issue will go for a long time and the people of Zimbabwe will suffer.

Kevin.

To be honest, I think the British public would be more supportive of an invasion of Zimbabwe than they would of Iraq and Afganstan as they can see how the people of Zimbabwe are suffering at the hands of Mugabe, more so than the Iraqis were at the hands of Sadam Hussien. That said, you are right, there is little of interest (ie oil) in Zimbabwe and therefore it is very unlikely that Brown would be interested in such a venture. This will only be solved by the Zimbabweans themselves and their neighbours, until then, as you say, the people of zimbabwe will continue to suffer

Kevster

Duzzie wrote:

That said, you are right, there is little of interest (ie oil) in Zimbabwe and therefore it is very unlikely that Brown would be interested in such a venture.

...and that is also a terribly sad fact: That wars are not started to simply relieve a nation's people of suffering. Rather, wars are only started if the invading nation has a vested interest in the nation they are invading.

Britain and the USA never cared about the Iraqi people - They only cared about themselves. Also, they only invaded Afghanistan - not to free the Afghan's - but to ultimately protect their own nations.

There never was or will be true selflessess when it come to wars.

Kevin.

Duzzie

Kevster wrote: »

...
Britain and the USA never cared about the Iraqi people - They only cared about themselves. Also, they only invaded Afghanistan - not to free the Afghan's - but to ultimately protect their own nations.

There never was or will be true selflessess when it come to wars.

Kevin.

To true.....

Which begs the question. Why when they have been invaded by in the region of 4 million refugees from Zimbabwe, have South Africa done nothing the protect themselves?? Why have none of the SADAC countries said a single word against Mugabe dispite the fact that he is destabilising the whole of Southern Africa.

Kevster

Duzzie wrote:

Why have none of the SADAC countries said a single word against Mugabe dispite the fact that he is destabilising the whole of Southern Africa.

Well, I know a black person from Zimbabwe and, apparently, Mugabe gives donations/gifts to some of the other leaders too. I don't know how true that is but it would explain why all of the neighbouring African nations remain quiet. You could look at it from the point of view that the majority of nations in Africa have huge problems of their own though.

Regarding South Africa, I can only think that their funding is stretched at the moment due to preparations for the soccer World Cup; and that they cannot actually afford to do anything about Zimbabwe.

Kevin.

mike65

The reason no black African leader will publicly speak against Mugabe is simple enough - racism and nationalism. Mbeki and the like fear that if they say something "Bob" will jump up and accuse them of being an Uncle Tom in the pay of whitey, the words fed to him by British homosexuals (Mugabe seems to have a thing about thier influence in geo politics) who seek to retake Africa by using trojan horses.

He's nuts. Its nuts.

Mike.

Kaiser_Sma

There should be a peace keeping intervention of some degree, even if it's just to stop Zanu-PF from bullying the public into voting them back in in the run off. This time i don't think a unilateral british mission is a good idea, Zanu-PFs prime self justification is opposition to the british, it would just play into their hands.

Victor

Maguabe associates with homosexuals!!

Grizzly 45

turgon wrote: »

Lads lads lads your getting way too ahead of yourselves! Yee forget that countries like Britain and the US don't intervene just for moralistic purposes - they need something in return. No oil, no money, no moral intervention. Simple as.

Same in Kosovo - does anyone think Kosovo would be independent if the US didn't want it? The great G.W. Bushy wushy himself couldn't care two republican hoots about the Kosovars - they aren't in his electorate! The US just wanted another ally against Russia.

Err ever consider that it is Muslim first off??That Bush inherited this mess from the great Klintoon non attention to US foriegn policy.That this whole idea was for the West to buy some credit with our Muslim neighbours in that we went in and kicked the Serbs about for them.Not that it made a blind bit of difference after 911 and the Serbs saying we told you so that they were a bunch of savages.


Heres another take on Zimbabwae.Who supplied Mugabe with most of his training,weapons etc.?The Chinese. I doubt they did it very much for free either... Maybe the country can be let go to pot under mr Mugabwae,as the Chinese ,who are short of raw materials,land for their pouplation etc,might have said.Run it as you see fit Comrade,when you retire,die or whatnot,we will come in and under the glorious hand of intl communism rebuild and colonise it.
Who is going to risk sparking off the Chinese oover a piece of now famine land down in Africa???If the Yellow men want it so let them have it.At least they Will do somthing with it.
If us whiteys go near it again it is invasion,oppression of the black people,messing in African politics,US Brit imperialism etc.So screw it,let them sort it out themselves.They wanted a communist black power country with whitey gone.Now they have it. Enjoy!

The South Africans are not intrested in getting involved in "wen we land"[ Comes from what all the Rhodesians say ."when we were in Sailsbury,When we did this or that] They have too much internal problems and refugee problems coming over from Zimbabwae into N South Africa[an oxymoron that]

Only you are going to change that regime is start a counter revoultion like what took Mugabe to power.

dfx-

South Africa alone is Mugabe's lifeblood and they could stop him in an instant if they wanted to.

Britain intervening would only bolster Mugabe's original us v. them mentality and strengthen him.

lostexpectation

im not trying to be a walter mitty but why isn't anybody doing a dogs of war on him? they still go on look at simon man and haiti... em,i don't know why the mdc are being so placidor (or to go walty mitty again, aren't getting part of the army on side and having a revolution, would it be any less messy that whats already occuring)

Duzzie

dfx- wrote: »

South Africa alone is Mugabe's lifeblood and they could stop him in an instant if they wanted to.

Britain intervening would only bolster Mugabe's original us v. them mentality and strengthen him.

Yip, Agree 100% Well put

Brian Capture

Mugabe is Zimbabwe's Mandela.

Effectively a hero when he came to power in 1980.

Nice to see him running white oppressors off their farms last week. Gives credence to his portrayal of himself as taking on 'British imperialists'.

Shed no tears for the white man. They're probably racists or apartheid-supporters anyways.

Duzzie

There is a big difference between Mandela and Mugabe.

Mandela served for the good of the country and stepped down when the time was right, some may say he stepped down too soon. He is an honorable man who had the interests of his country at heart. All south Africans, both black and white, see him as a great man and a great leader

Mugabe only serves to line his pockets and those of his political cronies. He will now do anything to cling to power in spite of the will of the people. He may have been a hero in 1980 but has since run the country into the ground. His use of oppression and intimidation to rule the people of Zimbabwe makes him no better than the opressors he replaced. At least then the people of zimbabwe werent starving. Using food as a political tool to keep himself in power makes him the worst kind of dictator. Very few in Zimbabwe would see Mugabe as a great leader, rather a ruthless ruler.

The simple fact is that many of the white farmers still in Zimbabwe bought their farms post independance. At independance in his speach, Mugabe welcomed everyone, black and white, to stay in the country. He openenly stated that he wanted the whites to stay in Zimbabwe to help bulid a new country in which racism had no place. Those that did stay worked damn hard to integrate into the new Zimbabwe and contributed an awful lot to the "bread basket" economy. This is their repayment

It is also not a simple case of evicting 1 white farmer. Every one of those farms has an entire village, including schools, for the workers of the farms. So for every 1 white farm owner evicted, there are hundreds of black farm workers and their families evicted, and often beaten too. The recent round of farm invasions have not been to seize land. They have been revenge attacks on areas where voters voted for the opposition. They have been a warning to voters to prevent them from voting for the MDC in any re-run of the election. The man will do anything to cling to power

The simple fact is that the vast majority of the farms siezed were not given to the "local indiginous farmers" they were handed to political cronies in return for support in propping up Mugabes regime. It is for this reason that agencies such as the UN, EU, World Bank and many more stopped providing aid to Zimbabwe.

Mugabe may have freed Zimbabwe from the apartheid system, but that gives him no right to fleece the countries resources to build a personal fortune. It does noy give him the right to run the country into the ground and it most deffinately does not give him the right to ignore the will of the people of Zimbabwe who have voted against him and to use violence and intimidation to subjegate them.

Brian Capture wrote: »

Mugabe is Zimbabwe's Mandela.

Effectively a hero when he came to power in 1980.

Nice to see him running white oppressors off their farms last week. Gives credence to his portrayal of himself as taking on 'British imperialists'.

Shed no tears for the white man. They're probably racists or apartheid-supporters anyways.